Ace of Spades liked my post about Glenn Greenwald, but thinks there's something that I "strain mightily not to think" because I "don't think that way. Or would like not to, anyway." He's right that I don't think that way, but he's wrong that I have to strain not to. The gay guys I know tend to be at least as masculine as straight guys. What's unmanly about wanting to be with guys?
He notes -- but takes out of context -- that I said "Do women not exist in Glenn G's world?" Someone in my comments acted like that was a reference to GG's sexual orientation, and my reply to him was: "That's not a focus on sexual orientation, and the fact that you think it is is a slur on gay men. The gay men I know pay a great deal of attention to women."
I asked that question after quoting this from GG: "Only those with a throbbing need to demonstrate their masculine virtues would glibly embrace things of that sort." Since some women support these things -- that is, policies GG connects to torture -- it can't only be about masculinity-challenged men trying to prove themselves. That leaves out the women.
Heterosexual men often make statements that are blind to the existence of women like that. Reams of feminist writing can be filed under the heading: "As if everyone is a man." The exclusion of women from the category of things that need to be taken into account is a broad cultural problem, not something to blame on homosexuality.
June 16, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
This might be solvable if we had more gender-neutral terms for things instead of them devolving down to male pronouns. But it is revealing how much 'defaults' to just male references...the default is our own.
The exclusion of women from the category of things that need to be taken into account
This is the wrong framework. First of all, women are not things. Women are people. Second, women, as women, do not necessarily need to be taken into account; people whose opinions are relevant and worthwhile need to be taken into account. That set of persons may or may not include women, depending on the size of the population and the necessary barriers to entry.
Heterosexual men exclude other men as well as women much of the time. When such statements are made they are addressed to an idea not sub-groups of potential victocrats bent on high-dudgeon at being specifically identified.
Ideas, and not people, are what is important in discourse. Political correctness distorts the discussion from ideas to personalities. Just ask Larry Summers!
So now you're linking to Ace of Holes?
Yeah, you're a real moderate.
Have another box of wine, lady - you've earned it!
Since some women support these things -- that is, policies GG connects to torture -- it can't only be about masculinity
LOL! Oh, man. That's about the silliest, most desperate attempt at getting in a good jab as I've ever seen. Why don't you just save everyone a lot of time and just write "F--- Glenn Greenwald" and stop trying to make it about his writing style or his disregard for women.
I can see that, for better or worse, Ace puts his point in terms designed to elicit an emotional response, but rather than just mindlessly responding to him thataway, in knee-jerk visceral rejecting reaction, why not instead pause and consider with serious searching wide-eyed wonderment his stripped-down bare-bones point? Me, I'm thinking it has merit.
Men who like men who like women who like the men who hate the women who hate them back...
Humanity is somewhere in the middle stage, evolving from a bunch of primitive animals, in which there is a pecking order, generally determined by brute force of the individual (more recently brute force of the king augmented by his army) and where females fo the species are primarily a prize to be won in combat,
to--
an advanced species of intelligent beings reaching for the stars, and in which the illogic of wasting the mental capacity and ability of an individual is seen for just that-- a waste. In such a species, it is hard to imagine that gender (or for that matter sexual orientation) would determine much of anything. Logic would dictate that the pace of progress is directly tied to how fast such ancient and wrong traditions which serve no purpose other than to waste intellect can be discarded.
So the question is:
Where on the evolutionary scale are we?
And the answer is, that is hard to tell where humanity as a whole is, since as individuals we are strung out all the way from the pure primitive to the pure forward thinking, and all grades and graduations and shades in between. I believe that the center of gravity is still moving forward, but it hardly tells the whole story.
Eli, no matter how "forward thinking" some people might be, they are still constrained by biology. The evolution you describe will not make its next big leap by overcoming constraints of mind but by overcoming biology. It's not that gender or sexual orientation won't matter to the enlightened, it's that they won't exist. Let's hope us slightly evolved primates don't blow ourselves up before that happens.
I thought that the enlightened, the progressives, the liberals, were supposed to be supportive of gay men. If so, why do they use gay perjorative terms to insult people who are more conservative than they? It makes no sense unless they are meerly paying lip service (heh heh) to gay acceptance and are deep in their heart homophobic.
As a conservative, I do not use terms for gay men or women as put downs. It is stupid, childish, and not a put down at all! It would be like calling someone brown eyed. Ouch, that really stings.
It is strange to me that the preceeding posts stray all over the map and fall over themselves in not addressing this obvious point.
Trey
It is an article of faith among traditional evolutionists that intelligence is a postive survival trait. But it may not be. Simple instinct may be far superior in this regard. Just ask your local cockroach.
"Since some women support these things -- that is, policies GG connects to torture -- it can't only be about masculinity."
Thanks for reppin' my homegirl, Ann!
http://s3.amazonaws.com/corpwatch.org/img/original/h-torture.jpg
Apoligies for the above post being in the wrong thread.
We must compliment Ann on her admission that she has gotten over her jealousy of gays, men in particular...
Thanks for reppin' my homegirl, Ann!
Yah, you need to update your jpegs of "torture". Captured Al Queda torture manual here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html
Funny how you Lefties always have situational ethics when it comes to things like torture.
"Funny how you Lefties always have situational ethics when it comes to things like torture."
And gay bashing.
Trey
If it doesn't result in organ failure, it isn't really bashing... something like that.
Obviously, "lefties" are opposed to AQ torture, as well as the torture our tax dollars pay for.
In the al Qaeda case, our gasoline dollars are, in part, subsidizing qaeda torture, due to the great support from Saudi Arabia. (who also fund American-killing Sunni militias).
for you guys to imply lefties approve of al qaeda torture is deceitful, at best. (Or maybe "deluded" is better than deceiving intentionally. We can discuss: The American Right: Deceitful or Deluded? )
Post a Comment